How the Webb Space Telescope got its groove ... er ... funding, back

 After several months of uncertainty, the future of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) appears to be secure, at least for another year. Lawmakers in both the House and Senate voted last Thursday to pass an appropriations bill (pdf) that, among its many other allocations, includes $530 million in funding for JWST for fiscal year 2012.

An artist's rendering of the James Webb Space Telescope
(image credit: NASA)

Since construction of the massive instrument — slated to succeed and surpass Hubble — began in 2008, it has been beset by delays and cost overruns that have earned it many critics. While NASA originally proposed a $1.6 billion price tag, that number has continued to climb and the most recent estimate is closer to $8.7 billion. Similarly, the launch date, originally set for 2011, has been pushed back several times and now is scheduled for 2018.

An independent review (pdf) released in late 2010 concluded that the project’s problems had been caused primarily by administrative failures and chronic underfunding from the beginning rather than technical issues. Whatever the cause, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies — a part of the House Appropriations Committee — had had enough. In July, the subcommittee proposed cutting $1.6 billion from NASA’s overall budget compared to 2011, and explicitly called for the JWST project to be terminated in its FY2012 draft spending bill. This prompted a significant outcry from many (though not all) scientists who see JWST as imperative to achieving priority research goals. Then, in September, the Senate Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, headed by long-time Webb supporter Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., released its own FY2012 draft spending bill (pdf) in which JWST faired far better.

A ‘Now What?’ Moment for Climate Change Skeptics

Skeptics and denialists of climate change lost a powerful voice recently. What’s more? It was one of their very few scientific voices.

Richard Muller, a physicist at the Universityof California at Berkeley, has long raised questions about the data used by climate researchers and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to chart the planet’s temperature record over the last 200 years or so: the chief evidence of recent and rapid warming. Among the questions were whether the data and the stations that collected it were of sufficient quality to allow for a valid estimate of warming; whether the data had been selectively chosen, or cherry-picked, to show a warming trend that would otherwise not be reflected; and whether urban heat-islands were skewing global average temperatures.

In an October 21 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Muller laid out a case for climate skepticism based on these questions. “Without good answers to all these complaints,” he wrote, “global-warming skepticism seems sensible.”

Good news for Webb Space Telescope; Bad news for other scientists?

A full-size model of the James Webb Space Telescope outside Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. (Image credit: NASA)

Perhaps for this post I should temporarily rename the blog to Plus AND Minus Science. Allow me to explain …

Last week, the Senate Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee released its recommendations for FY2012 funding (pdf) for the various departments and agencies it oversees. Of note for us science types are details about NIST, NSF and, of course … [drumroll] … NASA! So how do the numbers look? Well, not great at first glance, although “not great” might be the best that could have been hoped for given the current economic climate. The biggest (proportional) hit is taken by NIST, which would see its 2012 funding cut by 9.3 percent compared to 2011 levels and by over 30 percent relative to the administration’s request. By comparison, the other agencies fair well: the recommendations would see NSF’s budget cut by 2.4 percent relative to 2011 and 13.7 percent below the 2012 request, while NASA’s would be lowered by 2.8 and 4.2 percent, respectively. So those are some of the minuses. But where do the pluses come in (other than suggesting that the cuts aren’t as bad as they could be)?